After years of attending high-energy physics conferences, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with one recurring argument — repeated like a mantra:
“The universe must be unnatural.”
The so-called naturalness problem is everywhere. If a theory doesn’t match observations without extreme fine-tuning, it’s not the theory that gets questioned — it’s nature itself. This logic has become the last refuge for models that have lost any connection to experimental reality.
❌ The Myth of Fine-Tuning
Fine-tuning is not a mystery of nature.
It is a manifestation of contradictions within a model — inconsistencies between parameters that should be unrelated, but that must be delicately adjusted to prevent the theory from collapsing.
In this sense, fine-tuning is often a symptom of self-contradiction.
Rather than accepting this, many theorists promote ever more elaborate constructions — supersymmetry, string theory, loop quantum gravity, and the like — not because these models work, but because they’ve become self-reinforcing academic ecosystems.
They promise no clear predictions. They fail to match experimental data.
But they sound exciting.
And they attract funding.
The “naturalness problem” has become a rhetorical device to defend what is no longer defensible: theories that have lost predictive power, falsifiability, and physical transparency.
🌀 Elementary Cycles Theory: No Tricks. No Tuning. Just Physics.
I conceived Elementary Cycles Theory (ECT) as an answer to all this.
I didn’t want a theory that survives only through complexity.
I wanted a model that is geometrically grounded, deterministic, and testable. A theory that could be wrong — but never vague.
In ECT, elementary systems are described as cyclic in space-time.
The idea is simple: impose periodic boundary conditions in time, and you recover:
- Quantization as a classical resonance condition,
- Special relativity as transformations of space-time cycles,
- Gauge interactions and entanglement from geometric constraints.
All without fine-tuning, extra dimensions, or metaphysical multiverses.
ECT is not speculative. It has been peer-reviewed in over 20 publications, including in Annals of Physics, Foundations of Physics, and Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations.
🧭 Physics Deserves Better
Let’s stop accepting models that treat nature as absurd, just to keep funding alive.
Let’s stop masking contradictions with statistical tricks and multiverse hand-waving.
Let’s go back to physics that is predictive, coherent, and honest.
Nature is not unnatural. But many models are.
💸 And maybe funding should be inversely proportional to the number of fine-tunable parameters in a model… Just saying. 😄
🔍 Learn more:
📘 www.elementarycycles.org
📄 Latest publication: https://www.elementarycycles.org/bibliography/
https://inspirehep.net/literature?sort=mostrecent&size=25&page=1&q=a%20D.Dolce.1
Lascia un commento